BLUNT et al v. PHILADELPHIA HOSPITALITY, INC. et al

Filing 39

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ON OR BEFORE 4/3/17, COUNSEL SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE CASE IS SETTLED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 3/21/17. 3/22/17 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEANA ENNIS BLUNT and
CHARLES BLUNT,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
NO. 15-6637
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2017, upon consideration of defendant the RitzCarlton Hotel’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 33, filed January 30, 2017) and
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document
No. 35, filed February 20, 2017), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
dated March 21, 2017, IT IS ORDERED that Ritz-Carlton’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1.

That part of Ritz-Carlton’s Motion that seeks summary judgment on Jeana

Blunt’s negligence claim based on a dangerous condition created by liquid on the staircase is
GRANTED.
2.

That part of Ritz-Carlton’s Motion that seeks summary judgment on Jeana

Blunt’s negligence claim based on a dangerous condition created by the worn and slippery steps
is DENIED.
3.

That part of Ritz-Carlton’s Motion that seeks summary judgment on Charles

Blunt’s loss of consortium claim is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before April 3, 2017, counsel shall jointly
report to the Court (letter to Chambers, Room 12613) with respect to whether the case is settled.

In the event the case is not settled on or before April 3, 2017, counsel shall include in their joint
report a statement as to whether they believe a settlement conference before a magistrate judge
or mediation under Local Civil Rule 53.3 and the Mediation Protocol Under Local Civil Rule
53.3 might be of assistance in resolving the case and, if so, on what form of alternate dispute
resolution they agree and by what date they will be prepared to begin such proceedings. If the
parties agree on alternative dispute resolution and deem it appropriate to suspend further
proceedings under the Scheduling Order until the question of settlement is fully explored, they
should request a vacatur of the Scheduling Order in their joint report.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2